ill 


IP'' 


ii 


111 


^'/PIllJP  ■ 


SrfiV- 


w,]V[.   McPheeters 


Interpretation 


fej.' 


^PM^ 


^^ 


r:-' 


•?ife- 


c 


.v^.- 


,^^>=«p«r%.*,f 


BS47G 
.M17 


I^^' 


#- 


Slodiai  st'iiiV 


BS47G 
.Mil 


i^yrrs/ 


W.  K.  K 

PART  I.  SECTION  I. 

INTERPRETATION— PART  I.    INTRODUCTION:  IS 
A  SCIENCE  OF  INTERPRETATION  POSSIBLE? 

PART    I.    SECTION    I.    CONDITIONS    PRECEDENT 
TO  A  SATISFACTORY  ANSWER. 


Lecture  I.  Implications  of  Term  "Science." 

Prelim.  Rem.  1.  Two  answers  equally  facile — and  eq. 
worthless:  (1)  An  indolent  and  uninformed — Yes;  (2)  And 
indolent  and  cynical — No.  2.  Importance  of  ques.  evidenced 
by  statement  of  Galileo :  "Hence  it  appears,"  he  said,  "that 
when  we  have  to  do  with  natural  effects  brought  under  our 
eyes  by  the  experience  of  our  senses,  or  deduced  from  abso- 
lute demonstrations,  these  can  in  nowise  be  called  in  ques- 
tion on  the  strength  of  Scripture  texts  that  are  susceptible 
of  a  thousand  different  interpretations,  for  the  words  of 
Scripture  are  not  so  strictly  limited  in  their  significance  as 
the  phenomena  of  nature."^  These  words  imply  an  irreme- 
diable ambiguity  in  SS.  3.  An  intelligent  ans.  presup- 
poses insight  (1)  into  implications  of  term  "science;"  (2) 
into  nature  of  subject  matter  with  which  interprtn.  has  to 
do;  (3)   into  the  problem  thus  presented  to  the  interpreter. 

I.  Implications  of  Term  "Science."  1.  "Science  is  a  body 
of  truth  relating  to  any  well  defined  object,  or  class  of 
objects,  so  arranged  as  to  be  easily  comprehended  and 
retained  and  conveniently  used.  The  merits  at  which  it 
aims  are  completeness,  thoroughness  and  method.  Its 
objects  are  the  numberless  things  which  nature  furnishes 
for  us  to  study. "^ 

ll'Quoted  in  Perry's  Present  Philosophical  Tendencies,  from  Popular 
Science  Monthly,  vol.  X,  1877,  p.  389.|| 
||-Bowen's  Logic,  p.  315.|| 


\y 


2.  "Science  is  knowledge  arranged,  classified  and  system- 
atized, with  the  end  in  view  of  arriving  at  an  ultimate  prin- 
ciple of  unity.  Science  aims  to  be  a  unifier  of  knowledge. 
In  this  view  the  writer  is  disposed  to  concur  with  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer."^ 

3.  "Science  is  regarded  by  Kant  as  an  organism  which 
grows  from  within,  not  as  an  aggregate  which  increases 
from  without.  A  science,  according  to  Kant,  is  a  system 
of  conceptions  unified  and  distributed  by  a  central  and  regu- 
lative idea ;  or,  in  other  words,  a  system  organized  on  what 
he  calls  architectonic  principles,  or  constituted  by  parts 
which  possess  an  essential  afifinity  and  can  be  deduced  from 
one  supreme  and  internal  aim.  The  idea  out  of  which  a 
science  is  developed — which  is  the  condition  of  its  possi- 
bility, and  which  determines  its  form  and  end — is  a  constitu- 
ent element  of  reason  ;  and  hence  not  only  is  each  science  a 
unity  in  itself,  but  all  sciences  are  related  to  parts  of  one 
grand  system  of  knowledge."* 

What  is  involved  in  the  statements  of  Girardeau  and  Flint 
is  illustrated  by  doctrine  of  Evolution,  as  formulated  by  Mr. 
Herbert  Spencer.  "Evolution,"  says  he,  "is  an  integration 
of  matter  and  a  concomitant  dissipation  of  motion ;  during 
which  the  matter  passes  from  an  indefinite,  incoherent 
homogeneity  to  a  definite,  coherent  homogeneity,  and  dur- 
ing which  the  retained  motion  undergoes  a  parallel  trans- 
formation."^ 

4.  "Generality,  as  opposed  to  mere  particulars ;  system,  as 
opposed  to  random  arrangement ;  verification,  as  opposed  to 
looseness  of  assumption  or  mere  theorizing  concur  in  that 
superior  kind  of  knowledge  dignified  by  the  title  of 
science."*' 

5.  "  'Scientific  facts,  unlike  facts  of  mere  contingency  or 
incident,  are  truths  of  nature,  Avhich,  when  once  discovered, 
admit    of    repeated    verification.'     John    Tulloch    Lect.    on 

1 1 -Girardeau  Dinrusaions  of  Philosophical  Questions,  p.  9.|| 
ipilobert    Flint   Classification   of   Sciences    Presbyterian    Review,   vii., 
p.  483  (7/'86).|| 

W^First  Prin.  pt.  ii,  ch.  17,  p.  396.     Cited  in  Stand.  Dict.\\ 
\\"Colvml>ia  Enci/clopaecUa  sul)  Science.]  | 


Renan's  Life  of  Christ;  Lect.  ii,  p.  88,  (Cited  in  Stand.  Diet., 
sub  voce.)      (2)  accurate;  systematic;  efficient;  exact. "^ 

6.  "Every  science  requires  some  means  of  investigation, 
some  method  of  procedure  which  is  more  exact  than  the 
mere  say  so  of  common  sense,  and  which  can  be  used  over 
and  over  again  by  different  investigators  under  different 
conditions.  This  gives  a  high  degree  of  verification  and 
control  of  the  results  once  obtained.  The  chemist  has  his 
icids,  re-agents,  and  blow-pipes,  etc. ;  they  constitute  his 
instruments,  and  by  using  them,  under  certain  constant 
rules,  he  keeps  to  a  certain  method.  So  with  the  physchol- 
ogist ;  he  has  his  miscroscope,  his  staining  fluids,  his  means 
of  stimulating  the  tissues  of  the  body,  etc.  The  physicist 
makes  much  of  his  lenses,  and  membranes,  and  electric  bat- 
teries, and  X-ray  apparatus.  In  like  manner  it  is  necessary 
that  the  psychologist  should  have  a  recognized  way  of 
investigating  the  mind,  which  he  can  lay  before  anybody, 
saying.  There,  you  see  my  results,  you  can  get  them  for 
yourself  by  the  same  method  that  I  used.'"^  Professor  Bald- 
win, from  whom  the  foregoing  is  cited,  then  adds,  "In  fulfill- 

ng  this  requirement  the  psychologist  resorts  to  two  methods 
of  procedure."  These,  he  tells  us,  are  Introspection,  and 
Laboratory  Experimentation. 

7.  Science. — "(1)  Knowledge  ;  in  partic.  knowledge  in  the 
eminent  sense,  as  the  outcome  of  the  systematic  and  trust- 
worthy functioning  of  the  cognitive  processes.  Systematic 
co-ordination  and  certainty  have,  therefore,  oft  been  speci- 
fied as  notes  of  sc."^ 

Scientific  Method. — "(1)  The  student's  first  step  is  to 
form  a  perf'ly  definite  and  consistent  idea  of  what  the  prob- 
lem really  is,  etc.,  etc.  The  second  step  will  be  to  con- 
sider the  logic  and  methodeutic  of  the  research  in  hand. 
(2)  The  most  vital  factors  in  the  meth.  of  mod.  sc.  have  not 
])een  the  foll'g  of  thisor  that  logical  prescription — altho  these 
have  had  their  value  too — but  they  have  been  the   moral 

W'Standard  Dict.\\ 

IpBaldwin's  Story  of  the  Mind,  p.  2. j| 

W^Baldxain's  Diet,  of  Psi/rholof/y  and  Philosophy,  sub  "Science."] | 


features.  First  of  these  has  been  the  genuine  love  of  truth, 
and  the  conviction  that  nothing  else  could  long  endure. 
The  next  most  vital  factor  of  mod.  sc.  is  that  it  has  been 
made  social.  On  the  one  hand,  what  a  scientific  man  recog- 
nizes as  a  fact  of  sc.  must  be  smthg  open  to  anybody  to 
observe,  provided  he  fulfill  the  nee  condtns,  external  and 
internal.  On  the  oth  hand  the  meth  of  mod  sc.  is  social  in 
respect  to  the  solidarity  of  its  efiforts.  When  a  prob  comes 
bef  the  sctfc  world,  a  hundred  men  immed'ly  set  all  their 
energies  to  work  upon  it.  One  contributes  this,  anoth  that. 
Anoth  company  standing  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  first 
strike  a  little  higher,  until  at  last  the  parapet  is  attained. 
Still  anoth  moral  factor  of  the  meth  of  sc,  perhaps  even  more 
vital  than  the  last,  is  the  self-confidence  of  it.  *  *  *  But 
mod  sc  has  never  faltered  in  its  confidence  that  it  w'd  ult'ly 
find  out  the  truth  concerning  any  ques  in  which  it  c'd  apply 
the  check  of  experiment. 

Summary  of  Implications:  If  there  be  a  sc.  of  Interptn: 
(1)  It  must  be  a  body  of  princpls,  rather  than  of  spe- 
cific rules ;  (2)  these  princpls  must  completely  cover  all 
the  probs.  of  Interprtn  ;  (3)  they  must  be  so  systematized 
as  to  be  easily  comprehended  and  retained,  and  conven- 
iently applied  ;  (4)  there  must  be  some  ult.  princpl  in  which 
they  can  all  be  reduced  to  unity;  (5)  there  must  be  some 
charactrstc  meth.  insuring  a  high  deg-ree  of  verificatn  and 
control  of  results  once  obtained. 

II.  Subject  Matter  of  Interprtn:  In  this  discussion 
limited  to  written  instruments. 

Features  Common  to  All  Written  Instruments: 

i.  All  are  a  mode  of  communication  bet  mind  and  mind. 
Here  note : 

1.  Communictn  consists  in  the  establishment  of  a  commu- 
nity of  ideas  and  emotions  bet.  two  or  more  minds :  2.  Inter- 
prtn in  an  efifort  to  participate  in  this  community ;  3.  A  sc. 
of  interprtn  simply  a  master-mode  of  communictn.  It  is  the 
sc.  of  the  processes  of  univ'l  communication. 


ii.  Media  of  communicatn  in  case  of  all  written  instrumts 
are  thought-symbols  which  (1)  appeal  primarily,  but  not 
exclusively  to  the  eye ;  (2)  consist  largely,  but  by  no  means 
exclsvly,  of  written  characters  ;  (3)  collectvly  they  constitute 
the  organized  whole  known  as  "written  language." 

iii.  Origin  and  Characteristics  of  Thought-Symbols. 

1.  The  thought-symbols  employed  in  written  instrumts 
are  as  various  and  as  dififrnt  as  written  languages.  This 
true  even  where  two  languages  employ  same  "written  char- 
acters ;"  2.  They  originate  in  racial  needs,  and  register  and 
reflect  national  history  and  racial  idiosyncrasy ;  3.  They  are 
conventional,  but  rarely  arbitary ;  4.  They  are  plastic  in  a 
high  degree.  Here  note  that  (1)  There  may  be  change  of 
form  without  change  of  force ;  (2)  of  force  without  change 
of  form  ;  (3)  of  both  form  and  force ;  (4)  changes  are  along 
line  of  least  resistance,  and  und  law  of  parsimony;  5.  Same 
written  characters  may  be  symbols  of  totally  diffrnt  ideas 
and  emotions  ;  6.  Tenacity  is  anoth  characteristic  of  thought- 
symbols. 

N.  B. — This  last  mentioned  characteristic,  along  with  the 
oth,  will  come  up  again  for  farther  consideration. 

Lecture  II.  Nature  of  Subject  Matter  Involved. 

i.  Particular  Writing  Defined:  A  writing  is  the  record  in 
thought-symbols  of  such  and  such  a  kind  of  the  mental, 
moral,  and  spiritual  functionings  of  a  personality,  so  and  so 
constituted,  and  so  and  so  circumstanced,  in  its  efforts  to 
produce  such  and  such  effects  upon  other  personalities  whom 
it  conceives  as  so  and  so  constituted  and  so  and  so  circum- 
stanced. 

ii.  Def'n  Analized.  (i)  The  writing  consists  of  thought- 
symbols  of  such  and  such  a  kind.  It  is  written  in  English, 
Greek,  Hebrew,  or  some  other  language.  This  means — 1. 
That  the  writing  is  English  in  the  same  sense  that  its  author 
is  English.  Each,  according  to  its  own  kind,  is  simply  a 
specialized  manifestation  of  those  characteristics  that  differ- 
entiate the  English  fr  all  oth  people.  2.  It  is  not  an  isolated 
something,  but  an  integral  part  of  English  life,  and  more 


partic'ly  of  English  literature.  3.  It  is  this  generic  char- 
acter of  these  thought-symbols  that  fit  them  to  be  a  medium 
of  communication  among  Eng.  men.  The  Eng.  language  is 
one  manifestation  of  the  actual  community  of  life  among 
the  Eng.  people.  Hence  it  is  a  basis  of  communion  among 
them.  4.  But  for  this  reason  a  bar  to  communion  with 
others. 

(ii)  A  partic.  writing  is  the  record  of  the  functiongs  of  a 
given  personality:  Here  note  :  1.  It  is  an  instantaneous  photo- 
graph of  the  personality  in  action ;  a  specialized  expression 
of  the  personality.  2.  The  thought-symbols  employed  are 
mere  media,  instruments  thru  which  the  living  spirit  pro- 
jects itself  upon  other  spirits ;  and  even,  so  far  forth,  visual- 
izes itself  in  action.  3.  They  are  subservient  in  an  amazing 
degree  to  the  will  and  needs  of  the  personality  using  them. 
4.  The  writing  is  not  an  isolated  something,  but  an  integral 
part  of  the  life  history  of  its  author. 

(iii)  The  personality  from  whom  the  writing  proceeds  is 
so  and  so  constituted.  Here  note:  1.  He  is  himself,  i.  e., 
dififerent  from  all  others.  2.  He  is  a  complex,  not  a  simple 
something :  the  product  of  at  least  three  distinct  complexes 
of  influences — (1)  Pre-natal;  (2)  pre-maturity ;  (3)  Post- 
maturity. 3.  He  is  not,  however,  the  mere  sum  of  these 
influences,  the  mere  focus  and  outlet  of  these  influences. 
He  is  possessed  of  individuality,  and  is  himself  a  vera  causa. 
4.  He  is  not  an  isolated  something,  but  an  integral  part  of 
his  nation  and  of  his  community.  "A  member  in  particu- 
lar" of  the  body  politic. 

(iv)  At  the  time  of  writing  the  author  is  so  and  so  circum- 
stanced. Here  note:  1.  Every  one  of  us  is  ceaselessly  acted 
upon  by,  reacting  to,  and  more  or  less  consciously  reacting 
upon  our  surroundings.  2.  These  influences  act  upon  us 
apart  from,  our  consciousness ;  and  in  a  measure  apart  from 
our  option.  3.  Our  reactions  take  the  form  of  thought, 
feeling,  words,  acts.  4.  These  reactions  are  occasioned,  and 
partly  determined  by  the  influences  that  call   them  forth. 

(v)  The  writing  designed  to  produce  such  and  such  spe- 


cific  effects  upon  persons  whom  its  author  conceives  of  as 
so  and  so  constituted  and  so  and  so  circumstanced.  Here 
note:  1.  The  specific  ends  aimed  at  in  the  writing  will  be 
determined:  (1)  Partly  by  its  author's  own  personality  and 
circumstances;  (2)  partly  by  his.  relatn  to  those  whom  he 
addresses;  (3)  and  partly  by  his  conceptn  of  their  charac- 
teristics and  circumstances.  2.  The  ends  to  be  effected, 
together  with  the  writer's  conceptn  of  the  char,  and  circum- 
stncs  of  those  addressed  will  determine — (1))  Theme;  (2) 
Literary  form;  (3)  Contents;  (4)  Structure  of  wrtg.  3. 
The  writer  may  have  a  wrong  conceptn  eith — (1)  of  the 
char.,  or  (2)  of  the  circumstncs  of  those  addressed. 

(vi)  Recapitulation  and  Summary:  1.  The  thought-sym- 
bols employed  in  the  partic  wrtg  are  not  (1)  a  simple,  but  a 
complex  something.  They  are  the  joint  product  of  the 
racial  genius  of  the  people  of  which  the  writer  is  a  member 
and  their  past  history ;  (2)  They  are  not  an  isolated  smthg, 
but  are  an  integral  part  of  a  larger  organic  whole. — namely, 
of  the  written  language  of  the  people  of  which  the  author  is 
a  member. 

2.  The  author  of  the  partic  wrtg  (1)  is  not  a  simple,  but  a 
complex  smthg. — a  joint  product  of  (a)  all  the  past  of  his 
people ;  (b)  of  all  his  own  past ;  (c)  of  his  Zeitgeist  and  envi- 
ronmt — of  all  these ;  (d)  as  organized  and  dominated  by  his 
own  individuality ;  (2)  He  is  not  an  isolated  smthg,  but  is 
organically  connected  with  his  race,  his  age,  his  commu- 
nity, etc. 

3.  The  partic  wrtg.  (1)  is  not  a  simple,  but  a  complex 
something;  the  joint  product  of  manifold  and  subtil  influ- 
ences playing  upon  its  author  as  he  writes,  and  his  own 
individuality.  (2)  Is  not  an  isolated  smthg.  but  is  organi- 
cally connected — (a)  with  its  author's  zeigeist  and  envi- 
ronmt;  (b)  with  the  life  history  of  its  author;  (c)  with  the 
previous  products  of  his  pen. 

N.  B. — A  point  too  important  to  be  passed  by  is  that  the 
thought-symbol  employed  in  a  given  wrtg  viewed  in  their 
entirety  constitute  an  organic  whole. 


8 

Lecture  III.  Twofold  Problem  of  Interpreter, 

Prelim.  Rem:   1.  Two  famous  dicta: 

(1)  Bengel  with  his  usual  sententious  wisdom  has  said: 
'Tt  is  the  special  office  of  every  interpretation  to  exhibit 
adequately  the  force  and  significance  of  the  words  which  the 
text  contains,  so  as  to  express  everything  which  the  author 
intended,  and  to  introduce  nothing  which  he  did  not  intend." 
This  is  capital.  (2)  Very  valuable  is  the  dictum  of  Salmon  : 
"The  interpreter's  function  not  being  to  develop  some  mean- 
ing which  the  words  might  bear  to  present  students,  or 
which  the  first  readers  may  have  seen  in  them,  but  simply 
to  ascertain  with  precision  and  completeness,  the  ideas 
which  the  writers  themselves  meant  to  convey,  it  may  be 
said  with  Schleiermacher  that  in  a  certain  sense,  the  inter- 
preter has  to  educe  more  than  the  author  introduced.  The 
former  has  to  bring  out  into  clearness  much  that  influenced 
the  latter  half  unconsciously  in  his  composition,  and  to  give 
objective  statement  to  much  that  underlies  his  definite  state- 
ments. Hence  the  special  need  of  a  scientific  Hermeneutic 
for  a  book  like  the  Bible,  in  which  there  is  so  much  that  is 
implicit."  This  only  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  the  state- 
ment that  the  Bible  has  a  Divine  Author,  as  well  as  human 
authors.  The  student  is  urged  to  analyze  this  dictum,  pon- 
der each  element  of  it,  and  commit  the  whole  to  memory. 

2.  The  function  of  the  interpreter  is  to  put  those  for  whom 
he  interprets  into  communicatn  with  the  author  inter- 
preted. But  obviously  to  do  this  he  must  previously  have 
put  himself  in  communicatn  with  the  author.  His  prob- 
lem, therefore,  is  two-fold. 

(I)  First  Phase  of  Problem:  i.  Problem  Stated:  For  a 
person  so  and  so  constituted  and  so  and  so  circumstanced  to 
ascertain  with  precision  and  completeness  the  significance 
and  force  of  the  functionings  of  another  person  so  and  so 


constituted  and  so  and  so  circumstanced  who  is  functioning 
thru  thought-symbols  of  such  and  such  a  kind  with  a  view 
to  producing  such  and  such  results  upon  other  persons  whom 
he  conceives  of  as  being  so  and  so  constituted  and  so  and  so 
circumstanced. 

ii.  Factors  Giving  Rise  to  Problem:  (i)  The  difference 
bet  the  thought-symbols  thru  which  the  writer  under  exam- 
inatn  is  functioning,  and  those  thru  which  the  interpreter  is 
accustomed  to  function — c.  a.,  the  diffrnc  bet  Eng.  and 
Greek,  or  Greek  and  Heb.  Here  note:  1.  The  interpreter 
deals  directly  with  the  thought-symbols.  2.  These  are  only 
a  part  of  a  larger  organized  whole  with  which  they  are 
organically  connected  ;  and  can  only  be  understood  as  such. 
3.  Behind  this  larger  body  of  thought-symbols  and  find- 
ing expression  thru  them  are  racial  points  of  view,  racial 
habits  of  thought,  racial  genius,  which  in  their  turn  have 
been  partly  determined  and  partly  modified  by  racial  his- 
tory. 4.  Behind  the  selected  body  of  thought-symbols  con- 
stituting the  wrtg  und  exam  are  the  personality  and  pur- 
pose of  the  writer  functioning  thru  them  imparting  to  them 
a  specific  quality  and  character  and  in  some  respects,  it  may 
be,  a  new  significance  and  force.  5.  Hence  the  essence  of 
the  interpreter's  task  here  is  (1)  negatively  to  divest  himself 
of  his  own  racial  genius ;  (2)  to  reconstruct  the  racial  genius 
and  history  of  the  people  whose  thought-symbols  have  been 
employed  in  the  wrtg  und  exam  ;  (3)  to  invest  himself  with 
that  recial  genius — in  a  word,  to  Hellenize,  or  Hebraize  his 
mind. 

(ii)  The  differnc  bet  the  personality  of  the  person 
employing  the  symbols  and  that  of  the  interpreter.  N.  B. — 
This  is  a  constant  factor  in  all  interprtn,  even  where  the 
interpreter  and  the  person  being  interpreted  use  the  same 
thought-symbols.  The  essence  of  the  task  here  is  for  the 
interpreter:  (1)  To  repress  and  hold  in  abeyance  his  own 
personality  ;  (2)  to  reconstruct  the  personality  of  the  person 
l)eing  interpreted;   (3)   to  assimilate  himself  to  it. 


10 


(iii)  The  differnc  bet  circumstncs  of  the  person  being 
interpreted  and  those  of  the  interpreter.  N.  B. — This 
again  is  a  more  or  less  constant  factor  in  all  interprtn. 

The  essence  of  the  interpreter's  task  here  is — (1)  To 
exchide  fr  his  mind  the  influence  of  his  own  circumstncs 
and  surroundings ;  (2)  to  reconstruct  those  of  the  person 
being  interpreted,  and  those  of  his  original  readers ;  (3)  to 
put  himself  (a)  in  the  place  of  the  person  whom  he  is  inter- 
preting; (b)  and  then  in  that  of  the  original  readers.  Ana- 
chronism is  fatal  to  all  real  interpretatn. 

(11)   Second  Phase  of  Problem,  i.  Problem  Stated:  For  a 

person  so  and  so  constituted  and  so  and  so  circumstanced 
adecjuately  to  exhibit  the  significance  and  force  of  the 
thought-symbols  in  a  given  writing  to  other  persons  who 
are  so  and  so  constituted  and  so  and  so  circumstanced. 

ii.  Factors  giving  rise  to  the  problem  and  determining 
its  essence,  and  the  form  of  its  solution,  (i)  These  are  the 
same  as  those  already  mentioned  in  case  of  interpreter  him- 
self. 

N.  B. — The  difficulties  of  the  problem  (I),  (i),  above  are 
enhanced  by  the  following  considerations — 1.  The  inter- 
preter must  set  forth  the  functionings  of  the  writer  whom  he 
is  interpreting  thru  symbols  other  than  those  used  by  the 
writer;  but  it  is  imposs  to  establish  an  exact  equipollence 
bet  the  thought-symbols  of  two  difl:rnt  languages.  It  is 
easier  for  the  interpreter  to  Hellenize  or  Hebraize  his  mind 
than  it  is  for  him  to  Hellenize  or  Hebraize  his  mother 
tongue.  2.  But  such  is  the  closeness  of  the  reltn  bet  thought 
and  thought-symbols  that  it  is  difficlt  to  change  the  latter 
without  marring  the  former. 

(ii)  Diffrnc  bet  the  personality  of  the  interpreter  and  that 
of  those  for  whm  he  is  interprtg.     See  abv.  (I)   (ii). 

(iii)  Diffrnc  bet  circumstncs  of  interpreter  and  those  of 
persons  for  whm  he  is  interprtg.     See  abv.  (I)   (iii). 

N.  B. — Etymologically  "interpreter"  means  "a  go-be- 
tween." He  is  a  mediator,  and  must,  as  we  say,  "be  in 
touch,"  both  with  the  writer  whm  he  seeks  to  interpret,  and 
with  those  to  whm  he  interprets.     Jo.  i.  18  is  in  point  here. 


11 


R>.nder  last   clause — "He  hath   exegeted  him,"   interpreted 
Him. 

N.  B. — The  term  "adequately"  in  the  statemt  above  is  a 
relative  term.  It  may  be  relative — 1.  To  the  specific  pur- 
pose of  the  interpreter ;  or  2.  To  the  needs  and  circumstancs 
of  those  for  whom  he  interprets. 


Section  II.  Data  for  a  Satisfactory  Answer. 

Lecture  I.  Data  from  Case  of  Miss  Helen  Keller. 

I.  The  Case  to  Be  Studied:  That  of  Miss  Helen  Keller, 
i.  Outline  of  Miss  Keller's  history. 

Born  Tuscumbia,  Ala.,  June  27th,  1880.  Deprived  of 
both  sight  and  hearing  by  congestion  of  brain  and  stomach, 
February,  1882.  After  illness  retained  a  vague  memory  of 
only  one  word,  and  that  in  a  distorted  form,  'wah-wah' — 
'water.'  In  March,  1887,  was  placed  under  the  training  of 
Miss  Anne  Mansfield  Sullivan. ^'^ 

ii.  Miss  Keller's  account  of  the  experience  by  which  she 
was  enabled  ultimately  to  establish  satisfactory  communi- 
cation with  others. 

The  morning  after  my  teacher  came  she  led  me  into  her 
room  and  gave  me  a  doll.  *  *  *  When  I  had  played  with  it 
a  little  while.  Miss  Sullivan  slowly  spelled  into  my  hand  the 
word  *d-o-l-l.'  I  was  at  once  interested  in  this  finger  play 
and  tried  to  imitate  it.  When  I  finally  succeeded  in  mak- 
ing the  letters  correctly  I  was  flushed  with  childish  pleas- 
ure and  pride.  Running  downstairs  to  my  mother  I  held 
up  my  hand  and  made  the  letters  for  doll.  I  did  not  know 
that  I  was  spelling  a  word  or  even  that  words  existed ;  I 
was  simply  making  my  fingers  go  in  monkey-like  imitation. 
In  the  days  that  followed  I  learned  to  spell  in  this  uncom- 
prehending way  a  great  many  words,  among  them  pin,  hat, 
cup  and  a  few  verbs  like  sit,  stand  and  walk.    But  my  teacher 

\y"The  Story  of  Mij  Life,  p.  — .|| 


12 


had  been  with  me  several  weeks  before  I  understood  that 
everything  has  a  name. 

One  day,  while  I  was  playing  with  my  new  doll,  Miss 
SulHvan  put  my  big  rag  doll  into  my  lap  also,  spelled 
'd-o-l-l'  and  tried  to,  make  me  understand  that  'd-o-l-l' 
applied  to  both.  Earlier  in  the  day  we  had  had  a  tug  over 
the  word  *m-u-g'  and  *w-a-t-e-r.'  Miss  Sullivan  had  tried 
to  impress  it  upon  me  that  'm-u-g'  is  mug  and  that  'w-a-t-e-r' 
is  water,  but  I  persisted  in  confounding  the  two.  In  despair 
she  had  dropped  the  subject  at  the  time,  only  to  renew  it  at 
the  first  opportunity.  I  became  impatient  at  her  repeated 
attempts,  and,  seizing  the  new  doll,  I  dashed  it  upon  the 
floor.  I  was  keenly  delighted  when  I  felt  the  fragments  of 
the  broken  doll  at  my  feet.  Neither  sorrow  nor  regret  fol- 
lowed my  passionate  outburst.  I  had  not  loved  the  doll.  In 
the  still,  dark  world  in  which  I  lived  there  was  no  strong 
sentiment  of  tenderness.  I  felt  my  teacher  sweep  the  frag- 
ments to  one  side  of  the  hearth,  and  I  had  a  sense  of  satis- 
faction that  the  cause  of  my  discomfort  was  removed.  She 
brought  me  my  hat,  and  I  knew  that  I  was  going  out  into 
the  warm  sunshine.  This  thought,  if  a  worldless  sensation 
may  be  called  a  thought,  made  me  hop  and  skip  with  pleas- 
ure. 

We  walked  down  the  path. to  the  well-house,  attracted  by 
the  fragrance  of  the  honeysuckle  with  which  it  was  covered 
Some  one  was  drawing"  water  and  my  teacher  placed  my 
hand  under  the  spout.  As  the  cool  stream  gushed  over  one 
hand  she  spelled  into  the  other  the  word  water,  first  slowly, 
then  rapidly.  I  stood  still,  my  whole  attention  fixed  upon 
the  motions  of  her  fingers.  Suddenly  I  felt  a  misty  con- 
sciousness as  of  something  forgotten — a  thrill  of  returning 
thought ;  and  somehow  the  mystery  of  language  was 
revealed  to  me.  I  knew  then  that  'w-a-t-e-r'  meant  the 
wonderful  cool  something  that  was  flowing  over  my  hand. 
That  living  word  awaked  my  soul,  gave  it  light,  hope,  joy, 
set  it  free !  There  were  barriers  still,  it  is  true,  but  bar- 
riers that  could  in  time  be  swept  away.'"' 

||"The  Story  of  My  Life,  by  Hellen  Keller,  pp.  22-24.  || 


13 


iii.  Analysis  of  experience.  1.  Miss  Sullivan's  ultimate 
object  was  to  establish  more  perfect  communication  between 
herself  and  Miss  Keller.  Communication  of  a  very  imper- 
fect kind  existed  from  the  start.  2.  The  chosen  medium  df 
communictn  was  certain  tactual  sensations — namely,  those 
produced  by  the  use  of  the  manual  alphabet.  3.  The  first 
step  was  to  convey  to  Miss  Keller  the  significance  that — 
different  groups  of  these  impressions  bore  for  Miss  Sulli- 
van— the  group  for  "water,"  let  us  say,  or  for  "doll."  4.  Miss' 
Sullivan's  method  was  to  place  each  successive  group  of 
tactual  sensations  in  a  certain  context,  or  connection,  and 
to  assume — (1)  an  instinctive  ability  in  Miss  Keller  to  per- 
ceive that  her  actions,  /.  r.,  Miss  Sullivan's  were  teleologi- 
cal,  /.  e.,  characterized  by  design  or  purpose ;  and  (2)  that 
the  connectn  or  context  in  which  she  placed  any  given  group 
of  tactual  sensations  would  disclose  to  Miss  Keller  the 
meaning  that  she  (Miss  S.)  intended  it  to  have.  5.  Ulti- 
mate results  fully  justified  both  assumptions.  6.  Tempo- 
rary failure  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Miss  Keller,  instead  of 
noting  the  context  which  Miss  Sullivan  had  created  for  this 
group  or  that,  persisted  in  creating  for  each  a  context  of  her 
own.  7.  Repeated  failures  contributed  to  final  success — 
(1)  by  creating  in  Miss  Keller's  mind  a  larger  context 
revealing  more  distinctly  the  general  purpose,  or  meaning 
of  Miss  Sullivan's  activities  ;  (2)  by  causing  her  to  observe 
more  closely  the  particular  context  created  by  Miss  Sullivan 
to  reveal  the  purpose  or  meaning  of  this  or  that  group  of 
tactual  sensations.  Illustrated  by  (a)  "mug"  and  "water" 
experiments  ;  (b)  success  at  pump — where  the  larger  context 
helped  to  reveal  the  meaning  of  tactual  symbols  for  "water" 
when  placed  in  a  specific,  and  sharply  defined  particular 
context. 

II.  Conclusions  suggested  by  the  case  of  Miss  Keller,     1. 

All  communications  between  men  are  mediated  by  symbols. 
2.  The  kinds  of  symbols  possible  to  be  employed  are  theo- 
retically unlimited.  3.  The  significance  of  a  given  symbol 
is  determined  by  its  context,  and  changes  with  its  context. 
4.  The  possible  contexts  of  any  symbol  are  theoretically 


14 


unlimited,  and  hence  the  possible  significances  of  any  given 
symbol  are  also  theoretically  unlimited.  5.  Contexts  are 
(1)  objective — /.  c,  existent  in  the  external  world;  (2)  sub- 
jective— /.  c,  created  by  the  mind  and  existent  only  in  the 
mind ;  (3)  and  mixed — /.  e.,  some  elements  exist  only  in  the 
external  world  and  some  only  in  the  mind.  6.  The  signifi- 
cance attached  by  any  one  to  a  symbol  will  be  determined 
by  the  context  in  which  he  places  it.  7.  Its  intended  sig- 
nificance can  only  be  reached  when  a  symbol  is  placed  in  its 
intended  context,  /.  e.,  when  it  is  placed  in  the  context 
created  for  it  by  the  person  using  it.  8.  The  intended  and 
the  actual  significance  of  a  symbol  do  not  always  coincide — 
because  the  context  actually  created  for  a  given  symbol  may 
not  coincide  with  the  context  that  the  person  using  it 
intended  to  create  for  it.  9.  To  ascertain  with  precision 
and  completeness  the  significance  and  force  of  any  symbol 
or  collection  of  symbols  all  that  is  necessary  is  to  get  before 
one  with  precision  and  completeness  its  context — actual 
and  intended. 

III.  Central  and  regulative  principle.  From  the  forego- 
ing it  is  evident  that  which  guarantees  the  possibility  of  a 
science  of  interpretation  is  the  fixed  and  self-revealing  rela- 
tion that  exists  between  the  intended  meaning  of  a  symbol 
and  its  intended  context.  Given  the  intended  context,  the 
intended  meaning  is  self-evident  and  guaranteed. 

Lecture  II.  Data  from  Hist,  of  Decipherment  of  Persepolis 
Inscriptions :   First  Steps  in  Decipherment. 

Literature:  RFIBA,^-  pp.  1-27;  see,  also,  HBD,  iii,  art.  Per- 
sepolis, NS-H,^'^  art.  Medo^Persia,  vSec.  Ill,  IV,  V;  art. 
Assyria,  Sec.  Ill,  V,  VI. 

i.  Prelim.  Rem.  1.  Discussion  based  upon  account  in 
RHBA.     2.  The     Persepolis    Inscriptions.     3.  Problem    of 

ly^History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  by  R.  W.  Rogers. || 
ll'-'iVew  Schnff-Herzog  Encyclopae(Jia.\\ 


15 

Decipherers :  To  put  themselves  into  communication  with 
author  of  inscription  thru  the  symbols  graven  on  the  rocks. 
3.  Contrasted  w^ith  case  of  one  who  finds  himself  in  a  foreign 
land.  4.  Contrasted  with  problem  solved  by  Miss  Sullivan. 
5.  The  postulates  upon  which  the  work  of  decipherment 
unconsciously  proceeded — (1)  All  rational  action  is  pur- 
posive and  significant ;  (2)  The  specific  significance  of  every 
action  is  determined  by  its  context ;  (3)  When  considered  in 
the  light  of  its  whole  context — general  and  special — the  sig- 
nificance and  purpose  of  every  action  become  self-revealing : 
or  more  concretely— (1)  As  is  its  context  so  is  the  meaning 
of  every  written  symbol  or  groups  of  symbols ;  (2)  Restore 
with  completeness  and  precision  the  general  and  special 
original  context  of  any  given  written  symbol  or  group  of 
symbols  and  you  will  have  ascertained  with  completeness 
and  precision  the  significance  and  force  of  said  symbol  or 
group  of  symbols. 

ii.  Initial  stage  of  deciphment.  1.  Visits  of  Odoric  (1320), 
and  Barbaro  (1472)  barren  of  results.  Why?  Note  com- 
ments of  Dr.  R.  in  each  case.  (4d,  5a ;  7b.)  2.  Discovery  of 
de  Gouvea.  Note  unconscious  postulates  upon  which  his 
mind  acted,  (lla-b.)  3.  Second  step  in  deciphermt : 
Figueroa's  discovery.  Contrast  with  Hyde's  conclusions. 
Note  what  explains  difiference  bet  two  cases.  (On  Hyde's 
see  RHBA,  pp.  77-8.)  Note  implications  of  language  used 
by  Figueroa  (14a-b).  4.  Third  step:  discovery  made  by 
della  Valle  (1614-1626).  Note  language  of  della  Valle.  and 
also  of  Herbert  (1627-8:  see  p.  16c-17b,  21d-22a,  23b).  Dr. 
R.'s  comment  upon  work  of  H.,  and  upon  Chardin's  con- 
tribution to  "unraveling  the  secrets  of  Persep"  (24a-d). 

Lecture   III.  Farther  Steps  in  Decipherment. 

Literature:  RHBA.  pp.  28-47;  see.alsoJSBE.,'*  art.  Baby- 
lonia No.  8  (Language),  No.  9  (Script)  ;  NS-H  art.  Baby- 
lonia, sec.  V.  1-7;  art.  Inscriptions,  sec.  I,  II;  art.  Zoroaster, 
sec.  Ill,  IV. 

\Y* International  Standard  Bible  Ency.\\ 


16 


Progress  of  Decipherment:  1.  Fourth  step:  discovery  of 
Kaempfer ;  comments  of  Dr.  R.  and  their  significnc  (p.  30). 
2.  Fifth  step :  discovery  of  Niebuhr.  Dr.  R's  comment  of  N's 
quahfications.  N.  not  satisfied  with  merely  studying  works 
of  della  Valle  and  others — why?  Comment  of  N's  son; 
Comment  of  Dr.  R.  (p.  36f)  ;  Farther  comment  of  Dr.  R. 
(37).  3.  Sixth  step:  Tychsen's  discovery.  Dr.  R's  com- 
ment on  cjuaHficatns  of  Tychsen  and  Munter  (p.  39)  ;  Dr. 
R's  account  of  T's  discovery  (p.  38)  ;  T's  attempt  at  trans- 
lation, its  failure;  Explanatn  of  failure  (p.  39).  4.  Seventh 
step :  Hunter's  discovery.  5.  Contribution  of  Duperron  to 
deciphmt  (pp.  41-2)  ;  6.  Contrbtn  of  de  Sacy  (p.  43)  ;  Dr. 
R's  comments  (p.  44b-c). 

Lecture  IV.  Final  Steps  in  Decipherment. 

Literature:  RHBA.,  pp.  47-75,  95-98;  see,  also,  NS-H., 
art.  Persian  Missions,  sec.  1  ;  ISBE.,  arts.  Persia  and  Persian 
Language  and  Literature;  Memoir  of  Sir  H.  C.  Rawlinson, 
p.  157  and  ch.  xx. 

Final  steps.  1.  Work  of  Grotefend ;  Dr.  R's  introd'y 
remark  (p.  46)  ;  Dr.  R's  comment  on  G's  method  (p.  47b)  ; 
Trace  successive  steps  in  work  of  G  (eighteen,  not  including 
one  air  mentnd — pp.  47-54)  ;  2.  Work  of  Rusk  (p.  58)  ;  3. 
Work  of  Burnouf  (p.  59)  ;  4.  (3f  Lassen  (p.  60)  ;  5.  Of 
Rich  (p.  61)  ;  6.  Of  Westergaard  (pp.  61-2)  ;  7.  Of  Rawlin- 
son. Note  Dr.  R's  comment  on  limitatns  of  Grotefend  (p. 
57)  ;  on  R.  (pp.  62,  63,  64).  Note,  also,  statement  in  Memoir 
(p.  157,  and  Ch.  xx). 

Lecture  V.  Resume  of  History  of  Decipherment. 

I.  Genl.  Statemt.  of  Case  Presented  by  Inscriptions: 

i.  Purpose  of  monuments  and  their  inscriptions. — Monu- 
ments, a  method  of  sign-aling  to  all  passers  by,  and  inviting 
them  to  enter  into  communication  with  those  erecting  them. 

ii.  Media  of  communication — ^^the  characters  of  which  the 
inscriptions  consisted.  Thru  these  characters  those  erect- 
ing the  monuments  sign-ified  the  thoughts  and  feelings 
which  they  desired  posterity  to  share  with  them. 


17 


iii.  Assumptions:  Those  erecting  monuments  assumed — 

I.  That  the  monuments  themselves  would  disclose,  and 
the  passer-by  would  recognize  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  <  erected ;  2.  That  the  characters  employed  in  the 
inscriptions  would  disclose,  and  the  passer-by  would  appre- 
hend their  sign-ification  ;  3.  That  no  lapse  of  time  would 
modify  the  sign-ification  of  the  characters  employed  in  the 
inscriptions ;  that  this  sign-ification  would  remain  fixed  and 
unalterable  from  generation  to  generation.    ' 

II.  Problems  Presented  by  Inscriptions: 

(I)  Ult.  Prob. :  To  get  into  communication  with  authors 
of  inscriptions. 

(II)  Prelim.  Problems:  i.  Decipherment  of  Inscriptions. 
Decipherment  defined  and  distinguished  from  translation. 
(See  lexicon  on  both  words.)  N.  B.  —  Decipherment 
involved  the  following  problems  and  groups  of  problems : 

(i)  First  prob.  AVere  the  signs  used  in  inscriptions 
addressed  prim'ly  to  our  aesthetic  sense,  or  to  our  "sense  of 
record?"  Note  that  as  late  as  1700  Prof.  Thos.  Hyde  main- 
tained former  view. 

(ii)  Did  all  the  signs  used  in  inscriptions  belong  to  one 
and  same  system  of  thought-symbols  ?  /.  e.,  were  all  inscrip- 
tions in  one  and  the  same  language? 

(iii)   What  were  the  signs?     This  involved — 

1.  A  Determination  of  sequence  of  signs. 

2.  Dift'erentiation  of  prim,  groups  (/.  c,  groups  constitut- 
ing "words")  one  from  anoth. 

3.  Analysis  of  these  prim,  groups  into  elementary  signs 
(f.  c,  "letters,"  or  "syllables"). 

4.  Determination  whether  these  elementary  signs  had  a 
uniform  sign-ificance. 

5.  Determining  sign-ificance  (/.  c,  the  actual  phonetic 
value)  of  each  several  elem.  sign. 

6.  Ascertaining  whether  the  prim,  groups  (/.  e.,  "words") 
were  subject  to  modification  of  form ;  to  what  modifications 
each  was  subject ;  and  what  in  each  case  was  the  sign-ifi- 
cance of  the  modification. 


18 


7.  Determining'  the  sign-ificance  of  each  prim,  group 
(/.  e.,  of  each  "word"). 

ii.  Translation:  Here  important  to  note  that  "transla- 
tion" is  an  elastic  term.  Includes  everything  from  rather 
free  paraphrase  to  severely  literal  rendering.  It  aims  to 
reproduce  the  prima  facie  sign-ificance  of  the  signs  employed 
by  the  author,  so  far  as  this  can  be  done  by  the  thought- 
symbols  familiar  to  the  translator  and  his  readers. 

iii.  Solution  of  Problems : 

i.  Methods  Employed:  1.  Inspection — a  given  context 
was  examined  with  more  or  less  care  with  a  view  to  observ- 
ing, and,  as  far  as  possible,  classifying  the  phenomena  pre- 
sented. 

2.  Comparison — The  phenomena  presented  by  one  context 
were  compared  with  those  presented  by  another.  The  aid 
of  the  larger  context — linguistic,  literary,  or  hist'l  as  the  case 
called  for — was  constantly  invoked. 

3.  Scientific  Experiment:  (1)  Testing  results  reached  in 
connection  with  one  context  by  "trying  them  out"  in 
another ;  (2)  Formulating  theories,  and  testing  their  valid- 
ity and  sufficiency;  (3)  Employing  data  determined  in  one 
context  to  throw  light  upon  those  of  a  different  context. 

ii.  Conditions  Determining  Advance  Towards  Final  Solu- 
tion: 

1.  Enlarging  and  perfecting  the  context — linguistic,  liter- 
ary, or  historical. 

2.  Increasing"  care  in  inspection,  comparison,  and  testing. 


19 

INTERPRETATION. 

PART  I.  SECTION  III. 

CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT  TO  FORMULATION 
OF  A  SCIENCE  OF  INTERPRETATION  FUL- 
FILLED. 

Lecture  I.  Architectonic  Principle  of  Science. 
Lecture  II.  Characteristic  Method  of  Science. 

1.  Architectonic  Principle  Stated:  The  context — that  is 
to  say.  the  original  context,  and  the  entire  context — deter- 
mined and  will  disclose  the  significance  and  force  of  the 
symbols  which  together  constitute  a  given  writing. 

Here  note — 

i.  The  distinction  bet.  the  original  and  the  actual  context. 
1.  The  original  context,  is  the  context  of  the  writing  as  it 
came  from  the  hand  of  its  atithor.  It  is  as  ilnchangeable  as 
the  past.  2.  The  actual  context  is  the  context  in  which 
the  writing  presents  itself  to  this  or  that  interpreter. 
Accordingly  the  actual  context  varies  more  or  less  with 
every  interpreter.  Again,  the  actual  context  tends  not  to 
disclose,  but,  so  far,  to  obscure,  and  even  to  change  the 
significance  and  force  of  the  symbols  which  together  con- 
stitute the  writing. 

ii.  The  distinction  bet.  the  visible  and  the  invisible  con- 
text. 1.  The  visible  context  consists  of  the  writing  and  its 
setting,  so  far  as  the  latter  comes  under  the  eye  of  sense. 
Its  composition  varies.  In  case  of  the  original  context,  it 
includes — (1)  Body  of  symbols  constituting  the  writing. 
This,  of  course,  the  central  part.  (2)  Objects  evidently 
designed  by  author  to  be  associated  with  his  text.  (3)  All 
the  manifold  objects  locally  and  temporarily  associated  with 
composition  of  the  writing  so  far  as  discernible  by  eye  of 
sense,  even  tho  not  consciously  or  designedly  associated 
with  text  by  its  author.  In  case  of  the  actual  context,  the 
two  latter  elements  in  visible  context  vary  according  to  the 
temporal  and  local  situation  of  the  investigator. 


20 


2.  The  invisible  context  consists  of  linguistic,  literary, 
historical,  logical,  and  psychological  elements.  Of  these — 
(1)  some  associate  themselves  intimately  with  the  symbols 
constituting  the  writing;  (2)  others  are  associated  with 
these  symbols  as  back-ground  and  setting. 

N.  B. — This  invisible  context  is  not  less  real  than  is  the 
visible;  nor  is  it  less  really  a  part  of  the  entire  context ;  nor 
is  it  less  important  for  the  significance  and  force  of  the  sym- 
bols. N.  B. — It  is  undetachable  from  the  body  of  symbols; 
and  its  constituent  elements  are  unalterable. 

iii.  It  will  be  convenient,  farther,  to  distinguish  bet.  the 
Immediate,  Remote  and  Larger  Contexts.  1.  The  Immedi- 
ate Context  will  designate  the  wrtg.  und.  exam.,  and  most 
frequently  that  part  of  it  dir'ly  und.  inspection.  2.  The 
Remote  Context  will  designate  other  writings  intimately 
associated  with  the  one  und.  exam.  3.  The  Larger  Context 
divides  itself  into^(l)  the  Linguistic;  (2)  Literary;  (3) 
Historical;  (4)  Logical,  and  (5)  Psychological  Context. 

N.  B. — The  author  of  a  writing  is  the  nexus  bet.  the 
visible  and  the  invisible  contexts. 

N.  B. — It  is  the  function  of  Introduction — General  and 
Special — to  bridge  the  gulf  bet.  the  original  and  the  actual 
contexts ;   bet.   the   visible   and   the   invisible   contexts. 

II.  Architectonic  Character  of  Principle  Stated  Estab- 
lished, 

i.  It  determines  the  constituent  elements  of  the  Sc.  of 
Interpretation  and  their  relation  one  to  the  other. 

(i)  Constituent  Elements:  1.  Gram'l  Interprtn.  2.  Lit. 
Interpretn.  3.  Hist'l  Interpretn.  4.  Log'l  Interprtn.  5. 
Psycholog'l  Interpretn. 

(ii)  Mutual  Relations  of  Several  Branches  of  Interpreta- 
tion: 

1.  Gram'l  Int.  has  dir'ly  to  do  with  the  symbols  of  which 
a  writing  is  composed.  These  are  the  media  of  communi- 
cation bet.  author  and  interpreter.  All  oth.  branches  of 
Interpretation  have  to  do  with  ascertaining  in  what  respects 
and  how  far  the  usual  significance  and  force  of  these  sym- 


21 


bols  have  been  modified  by  one  or  another  extraneous  influ- 
ence. 2.  Psycholog'l  Interpretation  has  to  do  with  the 
influence  exerted  by  the  personality  of  the  author  (and  those 
for  whom  he  wrote)  upon  the  signifcnc  and  force  of  the 
symbols  employed.  Hence  it  becomes  a  ques  how  far  his 
personality  has  been  affected  by  hist'l  conditions  (including- 
in  these  the  personalities  of  those  for  whom  he  writes)  ;  and 
how  far  it.  /.  c,  the  writer's  personality,  has  affected  the 
thought  movemt  (Log'l  Interpretation)  of  the  wrtg,  the 
literary  form  used,  and  the  use  made  of  the  literary  form. 

ii.  It  Insures  the  Unity  of  the  So.  This  is  sufficiently 
obvious  from  what  has  air.  been  said. 

iii.  It  Provides  a  Characteristic  Method,  Yielding 
Results  Capable  of  a  High  Degree  of  Verification  and  Con- 
trol. 

(i)   Method: 

1.  Reconstruction  of  the  original  context  with  complete- 
ness and  precision. 

Here  note — (1)  "Completeness  and  precision"  are  neces- 
sarily relative  terms;  (2)  What  are  known  as  "material 
difficulties"  may  sometimes  hinder,  sometimes  absolutely 
prevent  reconstruction  of  original  context.  This  does  not 
invalidate  claim  of  Interpretation  to  be  a  sc.  2.  Inspection 
of  the  reconstructed  context ;  3.  Comparison  of  one  part  of 
the  context  with  another ;  and  of  one  element  of  the  context 
with  another ;  4.  Scientific  experiment,  testing  conclu- 
sions reached  in  connection  with  one  part  or  element  of  the 
context  by  those  demanded  by  other  parts  or  elements. 

(ii)  Verification  and  Control  of  Results.  This  insured 
1.  By  the  objective  character  of  the  Immediate  Context, 
and  of  many  features  of  the  Remote  and  the  Larger  Con- 
texts. 2.  By  the  indefeasible  sovereignty  of  the  Immediate 
Context — where  it  is  unambiguous.  3.  By  the  fact  that 
valid  results  must  satisfy  the  reasonable  demands  of  all 
parts  and  elements  of  the  context. 

N.  B. — That  which  threatens  verification  and  control  of 
results  is — (1)   The  essential  plasticity  of  all  symbols  mak- 


22 


ing  it  possible  to  fit  them  into  a  subjective  context  totally 
different  from  the  original  context ;  (2)  And  the  fact  that 
this  subjective  context  immediately  imparts  to  them  a  sig- 
nificance and  force  totally  different  from  that  impressed 
upon  them  by  the  original  context.  (3)  By  the  relation  that 
the  subjective  context  sustains  to  the  interpreter's  whole 
scheme  of  life.  (4)  The  fact  that  all  community  of  idea  and 
emotion  is  essentially  subjective. 

N.  B. — The  safeguard  against  this  peril  lies  in  the  essen- 
tially objective  character  of  the  original  context.  Sooner 
or  later  the  objective  context  will  dominate  the  subjective 
and  force  the  interpreter,  as  we  say,  to  change  his  mind. 


INTERPRETATION. 

PART  II.  CONSTITUENT  PARTS   OF  SCIENCE  OF 
INTERPRETATION. 

LECTURE    I.    GENERAL    GRAMMATICAL    INTER- 
PRETATION. 

Prelim.  Rem.  It  is  of  the  first  importance  for  student  to 
liave  clearly  bef.  him  connotation  of  the  term  "grammatical" 
as  here  tised.  For  this  see  printed  paper — "Grammatical 
Interprtn." 

I.  Gen'l    Gram'l    Interpretation,     i.  Subject-Matter.     All 

systems  of  symbolization  employing  gram'l  symbols,  or  any 
particular  srch  system,  ii.  Function.  To  ascertain  and 
adequately  to  exhibit  the  signifcnc  and  force  of  the  indi- 
vid'l  features  of  such  system  of  symbolztn  beginning  with 
the  simplest  and  most  elementary,  and  including  ev.  feature 
of  the  system. 

iii.  Postulates,  (i)  Fundamental  Postulate:  The  context 
(/.  e.,  the  original  and  entire  context)  determined  the  signifi- 
cance and  force  of  each  symbol,  and  the  context  will  disclose 
the  same,  (ii)  Subsidiary  Postulates:  1.  Ev.  feature  of 
the  context  is  significant ;  what  its  actual  significance  is,  the 
context  itself  must  declare.  2.  Any  and  ev.  change  in  any 
feature  of  the  context  is  significant ;  what  its  actual  signif. 


23 


is  the  contxt  itself  must  disclose.  3.  Symbols  are  hist'l 
phena..  and  as  such  (1)  in  their  origin,  both  as  to  form  and 
signifcnc,  are  genetically  related  to  a  given  hist'l  situation  ; 
and  (2)  all  their  subsequent  modifications,  whether  of  form 
or  of  significance,  are  genetically  related  to  varying  hist'l 
situations.  4.  Modifications  in  the  form  and  significance 
of  symbols  originate  und  the  operation  of  the  Law  of  Parci- 
mony,  and  are  also  restricted  by  the  Law  of  Parcimony. 
This  law  forbids  the  multiplication  of  separate  symbols,  and 
so  demands  that  new  needs  be  met,  as  far  as  poss.,  by  modi- 
fying the  form  or  the  significance  of  symbols  air.  in  use. 
It  forbids,  however,  the  "overworking"  of  a  symbol.  (N. 
B. — Many  modifications  of  form  occur  und.  the  specific 
phase  of  the  Law  of  Parcimony  known  as  the  Law  of  Anal- 
ogy)- 5.  Modifications  in  the  significance  of  symbols 
originate  in  the  plasticity  of  the  idea  signified  by  a  symbol, 
and  are  restricted  by  the  extent  of  this  plasticity.  (N.  B. — 
All  ideas  not  equally  plastic,  that  is  to  say,  certain  ideas 
fr  their  very  nature  have  a  wider  range  of  adaption  and 
modificatn  than  have  others.)  6.  The  significance  orig'ly 
given  to  a  symbol  and  the  modifications  of  this  significance 
occur  und  the  operatn  of  the  Law  of  Association  of  Ideas. 
/./There  may  be  modification  of  significance  without  modi- 
fication of  form  ;  and  modificatn  of  form  without  modificatn 
of  significance.  (N.  B. — This  does  not  mean  that  there  can 
be  modification  of  form  without  such  modification  being 
significant ;  but  that  such  modification  does  not  necessarily 
signify  a  modification  in  the  significance  of  the  symbol.)  8. 
No  two  symbols  have  identically  the  same  significance. 
(N.  B. — This  postulat-e  the  basis  of  a  sound  doctrine  of  syn- 
onyms.) This  true  in  case  of  symbols  one  of  which  starting 
with  a  lower  connotation  gradually  takes  on  a  higher,  while 
another  starting  with  a  higher  connotation  takes  on  a  lower. 
— e.  g.,  maker  becoming  Maker,  and  Creator  becoming  crea- 
tor. The  fact  that  either  term  may  be  applied  indififer- 
ently  to  the  same  person — God,  let  us  say, — does  not  mean 
that  the  person  so  applying  them  does  not  distinguish  bet 
the  significance  of  the  two  terms  nor  does  it  mean  that  he  is 
fndififerent  to  the  distinction  in  signifinc. 


24 


iv.  Method  of  Gen'l  Gram'l  Int.  See  Pt.  I,  Sec.  Ill, 
Lect.  II. 

V.  Products  of  Gen'l  Gram'l  Int.     1.  Primary  Products: 

(1)  Alphabet  (or  syllabary)  ;  (2)  Word  list  (or  list  of  ideo- 
grams) ;  (3)  Elementary  grammar.  2.  More  Developed 
Products:  (1)  Lexicon;  (2)  Fully  elaborated  grammar;  (3) 
Rhetoric ;  (4)  Treatises  on  the  genius  and  characteristics  of 
partic.  system  of  symbols,  etc.  3.  Ultimate  Products:  (1) 
Paleography;  (2)  Linguistics  ("The  sc.  of  languages,  or  of 
the  origin,  hist.,  application,  and  signifnc  of  words ;  the  com- 
parative study  of  the  laws  and  properties  of  languages ; 
comparative  philology"  *  *  *  "Philology  concerns  itself 
chiefly  with  that  which  is  peculiar  to  a  given  speech  and  its 
literature,  linguistics  with  those  laws  and  properties  which 
are  common  to  all  lang's ;  Philol.  is  conversant  with  distinc- 
tions, linguistics  with  analogies."  Stand.  Diet,  and  G.  P. 
Marsh.  Led.  on  Eng.  Lang.,  p.  44  s.  1885.  cited  in  Stand. 
Diet.)  (3)  Philology  (or  Literary  Philol.)  ("Philol.  the 
scientific  investigation  of  the  laws  and  principles  that  obtain 
in  a  lang.  or  group  of  lang's."     Stand.  Diet.) 

N.  B. — The  nature  of  the  products  of  Gen'l  Gram'l  Int. 
should  determine  their  use.  They  are  not  merely  aids  to 
interpretation  ;  they  are  themselves  one  and  all,  in  every 
instance  interpretations.  (See  printed  article,  Gram'l  Int.: 
Its  Primary  Problems  and  Products.) 

LECTURE  11. 
SPECIAL  GRAMMATICAL  INTERPRETATION. 

I.  Subject-Matter.  The  symbols  which  in  their  entirety 
constitute  a  given  writing,  and  these  viewed  as  a  part  of  a 
particular  system  of  gram'l  symbolization,  at  a  partic.  stage 
of  its  development.  N.  B. — Thus  Spec'l  Gram'l  Interpreta- 
tion assumes  the  results  of  Gen'l  Gram'l  Interpretation  as  its 
starting  point. 

II.  Function:  (I)  First  Function.  To  ascertain  with 
precision  and  completeness  in  what  respects,  if  any,  and  to 
what  extent  the  symbols  constituting  the  writing  have  been 
modified  in  their  signi-icance  or  force,  so  far  as  such  modifi- 


25 

cation  may  be  reflected  in,  or  determinable  from  the  gram'l 
phena.  presented  by  the  symbols  themselves.     Here  note — 

(1)  That  Spec'l  Gram'l  Interpretation  presupposes  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  principles  and  the  results  of  Gen'l  Gram'l  Inter- 
pretation as  related  to  the  system  of  symbols  employed  in 
the  writing  und.  exam.;  (2)  It  confines  itself  rigidly  to 
dealings  with  such  modifications  of  signifnc.  or  force  as  are 
reflected  in  and  determinable  fr.  gram'l  phena.;  (3)  The 
terms  "significance"  and  "force"  have  to  do  respectively 
with  the  intellectual  and  the  emotional  content  of  a  symbol. 
All  symbols  are  mere  containers. 

Postulates:  1.  See  postulates  given  und  Gen'l  Gram'l 
Interpretation.  Nos.  1  and  2,  7  and  8.  N.  B.— The  term 
"context"  is  intended  to  cover  the  whole  machinery  of  sym- 
bolization — including  not  merely  what  we  call  the  "words" 
themselves,  but  their  orthoepy,  etymol,  phonology,  prosody, 
and  the  like;  and  also  their  various  relations,  syntactical, 
rhetorical,  and  even  spacial  and  numerical  and  the  like. 
Farther,  as  here  used,  the  term  applies  prim'ly  to  the  writ- 
ing und  exam,  and  more  particularly  to  that  portion  of  it 
lying  bef  the  eye  at  any  given  time.  2.  As  bet  several  pos- 
sible significances  the  preponderance  of  probability  as  to  the 
actual  significance  Is — in  a  rising  scale  from  least  to  most 
prob. — is  as  fol's :   (1)  that  the  symbol  has  its  prim,  signif. ; 

(2)  signif.  most  common  at  time  of  writing;  (3)  most  com. 
in  writings  of  author;  (4)  best  suited  to  purpose  and 
thought-movement  of  writing  und.  exam  ;  (5)  best  suited  to 
immed.  context. 

(II)  Second  function:  Adequately  to  exhibit  the  signifnc 
and  force  of  the  gram'l  symbols  constituting  a  given  writ- 
ing, so  far  as  this  can  be  done  in  the  use  of  gram'l  symbols 
other  than  and  usually  also  of  a  species  different  from  those 
employed  in  the  writing  being  interpreted.  Here  note — 
(1)  The  term  "adequately,"  as  here  used,  is  nec'ly  relative; 
and  in  partic.  it  is  rel.  to  the  specific  purpose  of  the  interpre- 
ter, which  varies  with  circumstances ;  (2)  To  borrow  a  fig. 
from  music,  difference  in  "timbre,"  "range,"  and  "quality" 
are    consistent    with    adequacy    (fidelity    to    the    original). 


26 


Timbre,  range,  and  quality  are  inherent  in  and  inseparable 
fr.  individuality.  Modifications  of  signifnc  and  force  due 
to  these  qualities  in  the  interpreter  do  no  "violence"  to  the 
"original."  They  import  nothing  into  the  original,  but 
simply  bring  to  more  perfect  expression  than  the  author 
himself  has  done,  or,  it  may  be,  could  do,  what  the  author 
himself  put  there. 

Postulates:  1.  As  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  genius  of 
the  system  of  sympolization  employed  by  the  interpreter,  the 
char'c  features  of  the  system  of  symbolization  employed  in 
the  writing  being  interpreted  must  be  preserved  and  repro- 
duced. 

N.  B. — This  applies  to  vocables,  gram'l  construction, 
rhetorical  char'cs,  structural  char'cs  and  the  like. 

2.  The  necessity  and  the  advantage  of  any  modification  of 
the  symbolization  of  the  original  must  both  alike  be  jus- 
tified. 

N.  B. — The  considerations  that  justify  modification  are 
such  as  these:  (1)  The  modification  is  implicit  in  the  origi- 
nal, and  failed  to  be  made  explicit  simply  bee.  of  the  unde- 
veloped state  of  the  machinery  of  symbolization — e.  g., 
arrangement  of  matter  so  as  to  bring  out  logical  divisions, 
or  structural  peculiarities ;  use  of  inverted  commas  for 
quotations ;  and  even  the  relegation  of  matter  to  footnotes 
or  appendices.  In  all  these  cases  no  violence  is  done  to 
what  may  be  called  the  genius  of  the  system  of  symboliza- 
tion. The  absence  of  such  features  of  symbolization  are 
due  solely  to  the  undeveloped  state  of  the  art  of  book-mak- 
ing. Such  modifications  justify  themselves  (1)  bee.  they 
simply  make  explicit  what  is  air.  implicit  in  the  writing 
itself ;  and  (2)  bee.  they  greatly  facilitate  insight  into  the 
signif.  and  force  of  the  writing,  and  also  its  use  for  practical 
purpose.  (3)  In  case  of  a  conflict  bet.  the  genius  of  the  sys- 
tem of  symbolization  found  in  the  writing  and  that  used  by 
the  interpreter,  the  latter  must  prevail. 

III.  Conditions  sine  qua  non  to  success:  1.  Competent 
mastery  of  the  system  of  symbolization  used  in  the  writing 
being  interpreted ;  2.  Competent  mastery  of  the  system  of 


27 


symbolization  employed  by  interpreter ;  3.  Ceaseless  vig^i- 
lance  against  the  obscuring  and  perverting  influence  of  the 
subjective  context.  4.  The  interpreter  must  be  en  rapport 
with  the  genius  of  the  system  of  symbolization  employed  in 
the  writing,  with  the  author  employing  it,  and  with  those 
for  whom  he  seeks  to  interpret.  To  the  Jew  he  must 
become  a  Jew ;  and  to  the  Greek,  a  Greek.  No  amount  of 
mere  information  will  be  enough. 

IV.  Limitations  of  Gram'l  Interpretation.  These  are 
very  real  and  need  constantly  to  be  borne  in  mind.  They 
arise  from  such  facts  as  the  foll'g,  viz. :  1.  Gram'l  phena.  are 
sometimes  obscure.  Anomalies  and  irregularities  occur  in 
most  writings.  2.  Gram'l  phena.  are  freq'ly  ambiguous. 
3.  Gram'l  phena.  themselves  frequently  originate  fr  hist'l.. 
lit.,  log'l,  or  psychol.  causes.  In  such  cases  these  phena 
must  wait  on  one  or  anoth  of  these  branches  of  Interpreta- 
tion for  their  explanation.  4.  Besides  the  gram'l  phena. 
which  present  themslvs  to  the  eye,  and  inseparably  asso- 
ciated with  them,  tho  invisible,  are  hist'l,  lit,  log'l  and 
psychol  phena.,  upon  which  the  full  signif.  and  force  of  the 
symbols  depend.  With  these  Gram'l  Interpretn  is  incom- 
petent to  deal.  5.  Lack  of  equipollence — (1)  Bet.  interpre- 
ter and  race  whose  system  of  symbolization  is  found  in  writ- 
ing; (2)  Bet  interpreter  and  author;  (3)  Bet  one  system  of 
symbolztn  and  anoth. 

Lecture  III.     Spec'l  Gram'l :  Its  Products. 

I.  Primary  Product.  The  Gram'l  Commentary.  N.  B. — 
Tho  the  gram'l  comm.  is  in  fact  the  first  product  of  Spec'l 
Gram'l  Int.,  it  is  not  the  product  us'lly  first  presented  to  the 
public  in  completed  form.  Here  let  us  note :  i.  The  nat. 
of  the  gram'l  comm. 

1.  It  is  in  reality  a  conspectus  and  criticism  of  the  litera- 
ture of  interpretation  as  that  bears  upon  the  writing  und 
exam.     (N.  B. — It  is  such,  "more  or  less,"  as  we  say.) 

2.  It  is  a  reasoned  justification  by  its  author  of  the  conclu- 
sions reached  by  him  as  to  the  significance  and  force  of  the 
gram'l  phena  presented  by  the  writing ;  setting  forth  and 


28 


otherwise  revealing  the  principles  that  have  guided  him, 
and  the  methods  that  he  has  employed,  thus  enabling  the 
reader  to  judge  for  himself  of  the  validity  of  those  prin- 
ciples. 

ii.  Legitimate  use  of  gram'l  comm.  1.  It  is  not  a  "pony" — 
a  thought-saving  device  (or  supposed  to  be)  ;  2.  It  is  not  an 
"authority" — a  means  of  escaping  at  one  and  the  same  time 
labor  and  responsibility.  3.  It  is — (1)  a  labor  economizing 
device ;  (2)  a  means  of  awakening  and  directing  the 
thought  of  the  interpreter ;  (3)  an  argument  by  counsel 
addressed  to  the  interpreter  as  judge.  N.  B. — In  order  to  a 
safe  use  of  a  comm.,  it  is  of  great  importance  to  know  what 
is  us'ly  called  the  "personal  equation"  of  its  author.  This 
I  prefer  to  call  the  "subjective  context." 

II.  Ultimate  Product:  A  Translation.  N.  B. — This  is  an 
elastic  term.  It  includes  everything  from  what  is  called  a 
"literal  translation"  to  a  free  paraphrase.  Here  it  is  used 
in  neither  of  these  senses,  but  in  its  more  usual  and  familiar 
sense. 

N.  B. — Translation  and  a  translation  are  related  as  process 
and  product.  Anybody  can  make  a  translation  for  us,  but 
no  one  can  translate  foi^  us. 

i.  Problem  of  Translator:  From  the  symbols  of  the  lang. 
into  which  the  translation  is  being  made  to  select  such  as 
are  best  suited,  everything  considered,  as  far  as  possible, 
adequately  to  exhibit  the  signif.  and  force  of  those  used  in 
the  original. 

Here  note — (1)  The  implication  of — (a)  "everything 
considered;"   (b)   "as  far  as  possible." 

2.  The  machinery  of  symbolization  is  not  limited  to 
words,  but  includes  "all  those  contrivances"  by  which 
thought  and  emotion  may  be  represented  to  the  eye,  whether 
directly  or  indirectly, — e.  g.,  typographical  arrangement ; 
interpretative  headings,  and  terms  accompanying,  but  dis- 
tinguished fr  the  text  proper,  etc.  (See  Moulton's  Mod. 
Reader's  Bible.) 

3.  Matters  important  to  be  considered  by  the  translator 
are:    (1)    The    demands    of    Lit.    Form — (a)    of   the    L.    F. 


29 


used  in  original ;  (b)  of  L.  F.  used  by  translator ;  (2) 
Demands  of  idiom  of  lang.  into  which  the  translation  is 
being  made;  (3)  The. relation  bet.  the  symbol  employed  in 
the  original,  and  its  signif.  and  force.  Form  may  determine 
signif.  and  force. 

ii.  Nat.  of  a  translation:  1.  It  is  concerned  prim'ly,  if  not 
exclusively  with  the  symbols  as  symbols.  It  may  be  said  to 
be  an  effort  at  re-symbolization.  Large  areas  of  the  original 
context — visible  and  invisible — do  not  come  within  its  pur- 
view. 2.  It  is  an  interpretation — or  rather  so  far  forth  an 
interpretation.  Sometimes  and  for  some  purposes  it  may 
be  the  only  interpretation  necessary.  More  frequently  it  is 
only  the  starting  point  and  basis  for  the  most  important 
part  of  the  work  of  the  interpreter. 

N.  B. — The  correctness  and  worth  of  a  translation  as  an 
interpretation  can  be  determined  only  by  an  appeal  to  the 
original,  and  in  the  light  of  an  adequate  knowledge  of  the 
original. 

N.  B. — It  is  a  matter  of  history  that  mistakes  in  transla- 
tion have  had  grave  and  far-reaching  consequences. 

N.  B. — On  the  importance  of  correct  translation  see 
Saulez's  The  Romance  of  the  Heb.  Lang.,  38c,  46ac.  And 
on  the  importance  of  verifying  a  translation  by  comparison 
with  the  original,  see  Ibid.,  39c.  See,  also.  Prophets  and  The 
Promise,  150ab-ac;  237a-d,  and  passim. 

iii.  Elements  of  an  ideal  translation:  1.  Driver's  state- 
ment— "An  ideal  translation  of  the  Bible  should  possess,  I 
suppose,  four  leading  characteristics :  it  should  be  idiomatic, 
dignified,  accurate,  clear."  2.  Prof.  J.  H.  Gardiner,  Some 
of  the  terms  employed  by  Prof.  G.  to  give  expression  to  his 
sense  of  the  unsurpassed  excellence  of  what  is  known  as  the 
Authorized  Version — its  "unequalled  vitality  and  freshness 
of  expression"  (283ca)  ;  "it  clothes  its  own  language  with 
the  rich  connotation  of  the  original  and  with  the  less  defin- 
able, but  no  less  potent  expressive  power  of  sound"  (283d)  ; 
"it  is  a  work  of  extraordinary  vigor,  beauty,  and  individu- 
ality of  character"  (295b)  ;  "the  richness  of  the  music  and 
the  expressive  beat  of  the  rhythm  stand  out  pre-eminent," 


30 


....  its  power  to  express  strong  and  earnest  feeling 
through  the  pure  sound  of  the  style ;  through  its  rhythm  and 
the  harmony  and  mingling  of  its  tones  its  language  gives 
expression  to  those  deeper  and  diffused  moods  which  for 
lack  of  more  exact  expression  we  call  stirrings  of  the  soul" 
(302c-d)  ;  "it  took  over  from  the  Heb.  a  certain  swiftness 
and  momentum  also ;  and  at  the  same  time  through  the 
dominance  of  the  singing  qualities  which  I  have  air.  referred 
to  in  the  chap,  on  the  poetry  of  the  Bible,  it  had  a  richness 
and  coloring  which  have  perh.  never  been  surpassed,  and 
which  sufifuse  its  words  with  deep  reverence  and  earnest- 
ness" (308b-c)  ;  etc.,  etc.  On  the  importance  of  felecity  of 
phrasing,  see  Ibid. 

iv.  Conditions  of  Successful  Translation:  Gardiner's  The 
Bible  As  Bug.  Lit.  (from  which  foregoing  excerpts  have 
been  made)  296bb  ;  318b-320a  ;  323d-324d  ;  331bc-d;  337a-b  ; 
338cd  ;  355d-356a ;  356dd-357d  ;  360d-362b  ;  362c-363d  ;  392b- 
393a. 

Lecture  IV.  Historical  Interpretation. 

I.  Subject-Matter :  The  symbols  constituting  a  given 
writing  viewed  as  liable  to  be  affected  in  their  form,  signifi- 
cance and  force  by  the  general  and  special  hist'l  context  of 
which  they  together  with  the  author  employing  them  form 
a  part. 

II.  Function:  1.  To  ascertain  with  precision  and  com- 
pleteness in  what  respects,  if  any,  and  to  what  extent  the 
form,  significance  and  force  of  the  symbols  have  been 
affected  by  the  hist'l  context — gen'l  and  spec'l ;  2.  Ade- 
quately to  exhibit  the  same ;  3.  To  test  the  validity  of  all 
proposed  interpretations  by  their  consonance  or  lack  of  con- 
sonance with  the  demands  of  the  hist'l  context — gen'l  and 
spec'l. 

III.  Postulates:  1.  Every  writer  is  an  integral  part  of  the 
life  of  his  race,  his  age,  his  vicinage,  and  of  the  several  social 
groups  into  which  he  is  born  or  introduced.     As  such  he 


31 


shares  their  intellectual,  moral,  and  social  life,  reacting 
ceaselessly  to  the  ceaseless  movements  of  the  same. 

2.  Every  writing  represents  the  reactings  of  its  author  to 
certain  features — gen'l  or  spec'l — of  the  national  and  com- 
munity life  of  which  his  life  is  a  part,  and  can  only  be  fully 
understood  when  viewed  in  its  relations  to  the  same. 

3.  Every  writing  is  addressed  primarily,  tho  rarely  exclu- 
sively, to  the  author's  contemporaries,  and  presumably  is 
adapted  to  their  understandings,  and  related  to  their  circum- 
stances and  needs. 

IV.  Conditions  precedent  to  Hist'l  Interpretation: 

i.  Determination  of  facts  regarding  the  Origin  of  writing 
und.  exam,     (i)   Facts  as  to  its  Temp'l  and  Local  Origin — 

?'.  e.,  its  date  and  place  of  composition.  N.  B. — These  must 
be  fixed  in  order  to  the  next  step,  which  is  the  determina- 
tion of  the — 

Facts  as  to  the  World-view,  Zeitgeist,  and  Environment 

amid  which  and  under  the  influence  of  which  the  writing 
originated.  N.  B. — By  the  world-view  is  meant  the  way 
in  which  the  contemporaries  of  the  author  construed  to  their 
understanding  the  universe  as  a  whole,  and  human  hist,  in 
gen'l,  and  their  own  hist,  as  a  part  of  this  larger  whole ;  by 
Zeitgeist  is  meant  the  predominant  interests  and  prevailing 
view  points — intellectual,  ethical,  social,  political,  etc., — of 
the  author's  contemporaries ;  by  environment  is  meant  spe- 
cific features  of  the  situation — foreign  and  domestic,  politi- 
cal, religious,  or  social — that  obtained  at  the  time  and  place 
where  the  writing  was  composed. 

(ii)  Facts  as  to  its  Personal  Origin:  /.  e.,  the  facts  as  to 
its  author — his  antecedents ;  social,  political,  and  religious 
afifiliations ;  official  status ;  sources  of  information  in  regard 
to  matters  treated  in  writing ;  his  personal  attitude  towards 
the  prevalent  world-view,  Zeitgeist,  and  environment ;  his 
mental,  moral  and  spiritual  characteristics ;  etc.,  etc. 

(iii)  Facts  as  to  its  Occasional  Origin — /.  r.,  as  to  the 
course  of  events  leading  up  to  and  issuing  in  composition  of 
writing. 


32 


N.  B. — The  question  of  Origin  in  all  its  aspects  is  a  purely 
and  exclusively  an  hist'l  ques.  Hence  it  belongs  to  the 
domain  of  Hist'l  Criticism.  The  ques.  with  which  Hist'l 
Interpretation  has  to  do  is — not,  What  are  the  facts  as  to  the 
Origin  of  this  writing?  but,  What  is  the  significance  of  the 
facts  as  to  the  Origin  of  this  writing — as  determined  by 
Hist'l  Criticism — for  its  interpretation?  What  light  do  the 
facts  as  to  Origin  throw  upon  the  form,  significance,  and 
force  of  the  symbols  constituting  the  writing? 

N.  B. — A  correct  conception  of  "History"  is  of  funda- 
mental importance  for  valid  results  in  Hist'l  Criticism,  and 
ultimately  in  Hist'l  Interpretation,  which  assumes  the 
results  of  Hist'l  Criticism.  The  following  is  in  the  main  a 
satisfactory  brief  definition  of  history : 

"History,  in  the  correct  use  of  the  word,  means  the  prose 
narrative  of  past  events,  as  probably  true  as  the  fallibility 
of  human  testimony  will  allow"  (Bncy.  Brit.,  9th  ed..  vol. 
xii,  art.  History,  by  J.  Cotter  Morrison). 

ii.  Reorganization  of  the  hist'l  context  with  a  view  to 
exhibiting  the  genetic  influence  exerted  by  this  or  that  fea- 
ture of  it  upon  the  form,  significance  or  force  of  the  symbols 
constituting  the  writing.  N.  B. — To  do  this  is  the  proper 
function  of  Special  Introduction.  This  discipline,  together 
with  Hist'l  Criticism,  lays  the  foundation  not  only  for  Hist'l 
Interpretation,  but  also  for  Logical  and  for  Psychological 
Interpretation  as  well. 

iii.  Use  of  the  "hist'l  imagination"  to  realize — i.  e.,  to 
make  real  to  one's  self  the  action  and  interaction  of  the  vari- 
ous factors  in  the  hist'l  context.  N.  B. — There  is  a  vast 
difference  between  using  the  imagination  upon  hist'l  mate- 
rial, and  using  it  as  a  source  for  hist'l  material.  Of  course, 
the  imagination  cannot  supply  us  with  information  con- 
cerning the  past. 

V.  Pseudo-Hist'l  Interpretation:  Much  that  calls  itself 
"Hist'l  Interpretation"  is  vitiated  and  its  results  are  dis- 
credited by  one  or  another  or  all  of  the  following  faults : 

1.  It  is  dominated  by  the  theory  of  evolution. 

2.  By  a  naturalistic  conception  of  hist.  (See  illustration 
in  Princeton  Thcol.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1913.  695d.) 


33 


3.  By  assumption  that  "the  Bible  is  like  other  books,"  i.  e., 
is  in  all  respects  like  oth.  bks. 

4.  By  failure  to  allow  for  the  power  and  play  of  person- 
ality. 

5.  By  using  the  imagination  as  a  source  for  hist'l  data. 

6.  By  refusing  to  permit  the  writer  to  speak  for  himself, 
forcing  what  he  says  into  agreement  with  some  procrustean 
theory.  (Disallowing  the  sovereignty  of  the  immediate 
context.) 

Lecture  V.  Logical  Interpretation. 

I.  Subject-Matter :  The  symbols  that  constitute  a  given 
writing  viewed  as  liable  to  be  affected  in  their  form,  signifi- 
cance, or  force  by  the  specific  purpose  for  which  they  are 
therein  employed,  and  also  by  the  manner  in  which  the 
author  employs  them  for  effecting  this  purpose — i.  e.,  viewed 
as  liable  to  be  affected  by  the  Thought-goal  and  the 
Thought-movement  of  the  writing,  or  its  purpose  and  struc- 
ture. 

N.  B. — "Structure"  as  here  used  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  Lit.  Form.  Certain  Lit.  Forms — e.  g.,  the  sonnet — 
have  fixed  structural  characteristics ;  but  usually  Lit.  Forms 
permit  of  a  wide  range  of  structural  variation. 

N.  B. — All  writings  that  are  properly  included  und  one 
and  the  same  Lit.  Form  have,  of  course,  so  far  a  common 
purpose ;  but  in  addition  to  this  each  such  composition  has 
its  own  specific  purpose.  Log'l  Interpretation,  while  not 
indifferent  to  the  former, — /.  e.,  the  common  purpose,  is 
directly  concerned  only  with  the  specific  purpose. 

N.  B. — All  interpretational  processes,  whether  directly 
concerned  with  gram'l,  hist'l.  literary,  or  psychological  phe- 
nomena, to  be  valid  must  themselves  be  logical  in  the  sense 
of  conforming  to  the  fundamental  laws  of  thought.  But 
this  fact  does  not  transform  other  distinct  branches  of  Inter- 
pretation into  Log'l  Interpretation ;  nor  does  it  do  away 
with  the  necessity  for  the  latter. 


34 


II.  Function  of  Log'l  Interpretation: 

i.  To  ascertain  and  exhibit  the  purpose  and  structure  of 
the  writing  tmd  exam,  viewed  as  a  whole. 

N.  B. — The  purpose  of  an  ancient  writing  is  sometimes 
stated  by  its  author — e.  g.,  Jo.  20:31 ;  Luke  1  :l-4:  more  fre- 
quently it  has  to  be  ascertained — 1.  Fr.  a  careful,  detailed 
study  of  the  salient  features  of  the  hist'l  situation  that  at 
the  time  of  writing  confronted  the  writer,  including  par- 
ticularly the  circumstances  and  characteristics  of  those 
whom  he  addresses,  and  the  relations  bet  himself  and  them. 
2.  Fr.  a  careful  study  of  the  contents  of  the  writing  in  the 
light  of  the  foregoing. 

Postulates:   1.  Every  book  is  written  to  meet  some  need. 

2.  The  need  to  be  met  in  the  case  of  any  given  book  is  to 
be  sought  for  in  the  antecedents,  present  circumstances  or 
prospective  experience  of  those  to  whom  it  is  prim'ly 
addressed. 

3.  The  need  to  meet  which  the  book  is  written  will  usually 
largely  determine  the  specific  purpose  of  the  book. 

4.  The  purpose  for  which  a  book  is  written  together  with 
the  circumstances  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  will 
largely  determine  its  contents,  literary  form,  structure. 

N.  B. — The  foregoing  remarks  apply  to  writings  that  are 
what  are  called  "literary  units" — /.  e.,  is  single  organized 
wholes.  It  sometimes  happens  that  a  composition  con- 
sists of  a  number  of  such  "literary  units"  in  mere  external 
juxta-position  one  with  another — e.  g.,  Paul's  First  Epistle 
to  the  Cor. 

N.  B. — Even  a  writing  that  is  a  genuine  lit.  unit  may  fall 
into  a  number  of  divisions,  each  of  which  will  have  its  OAvn 
specific  purpose,  subordinate  and  germane  to  the  purpose 
of  the  writing  as  a  whole.  These  major  divisions  will  them- 
selves fall  into  subdivisions,  related  one  to  another,  to  the 
divisions  of  which  they  are  parts  and  to  the  writing  as  a 
whole — though  their  relation  to  the  latter  may  be  more  or 
less  indirect  and  remote.  In  other  words,  a  writing  may  be 
a  complicated  mechanism,  each  part  of  which  will  consti- 
tute a  study  in  itself  as  well  as  in  its  relations  to  the  writ- 
ing as  a  whole. 


35 

N.  B. — In  addition  to  its  main  purpose,  a  writing  may  be 
intended  to  effect  other  subsidiary  minor  purposes.  Where 
such  is  the  case  Logical  Interpretation  must  take  account 
of  these. 

ii.  A  second  function  of  Log'l  Interpretation  is  to  ascer- 
tain and  exhibit  the  significance  of  the  purpose  and  struc- 
ture of  a  writing  for  the  form,  significance,  or  force  of  each 
of  the  several  parts,  sections,  paragraphs,  sentences — of  the 
writing,  and  of  the  symbols  of  which  each  is  composed. 

Postulates : 

1.  Prior  to  positive  evidence  to  the  contrary  the  state- 
ments of  a  writer  are  to  be  presumed  to  be : 

(1)   Self-consistent;   (2)   Coherent   and    consequent. 

2.  The  meaning  of  every  part,  down  to  the  smallest  will 
be  best  understood  and  can  only  be  fully  understood  in  the 
light  of  its  relation  to  the  particular  whole  of  which  it  is  a 
part. 

iii.  Third  function — to  test  the  validity  of  proposed  inter- 
pretations— gram'l,  hist'l,  etc., — by  their  accord  or  their  lack 
of  accord  with  the  purpose  and  structure  of  the  book  as  a 
whole,  or  of  this  or  that  major  or  minor  section  of  the  book. 

iv.  Abuses  of  Log'l  Interpretation. 

1.  To  assume  that  a  given  writing  is  a  literary  unit. 

2.  To  ignore  the  demands  of  literary  form. 

3.  To  ignore  the  influence  of  individual  idiosyncracy — 
the  dift'erence,  let  us  say,  bet.  Paul  and  John. 

4.  To  ignore  the  influence  of  modes  of  reasoning  and  of 
composition  current  when  writing  was  produced. 

5.  To  fly  in  the  face  of  the  "immediate  context." 


1 J 


PAWPHIET  BINDER 

H^Z    Syracuse,  N.   Y. 

■^^^^^    Slockton,  Calif. 


DATE  DUE 

^i^lr* 

.'■"»<i»«*jf» 

j 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U.S.A. 

BS476.M17 
Interpretation. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


,^-> 


^Ss^-^s^ 


•*%' 


